Following the death of Major General Qassem Soleimani, for which the fake news media is still in mourning, Iran promised to retaliate harshly and “vengefully” for that. However, their retaliatory strike ended in nothing more than a face-saving move for the terrorist regime.
According to multiple sources, Iran fired fifteen missiles targeting two Iraqi military bases that host American military, with four of the fifteen having failed. While many Leftists celebrated this with smugness, once the dust had settled, we found that there have been no American casualties and very minimal, if any, damage was caused.
The President of the United States tweeted: “All is well! Missiles launched from Iran at two military bases located in Iraq. Assessment of casualties & damages taking place now. So far, so good! We have the most powerful and well equipped military anywhere in the world, by far! I will be making a statement tomorrow morning.”
In his statement the following morning, the POTUS said: “As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. I am pleased to inform you, the American people should be extremely grateful and happy: No Americans were harmed in last night’s attack by the Iranian regime. We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe, and only minimal damage was sustained at our military bases.”
“Our great American forces are prepared for anything. Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned, and a very good thing for the world. No American or Iraqi lives were lost because of the precautions taken, the dispersal of forces, and an early warning system that worked very well. I salute the incredible skill and courage of America’s men and women in uniform.”
“For far too long, all the way back to 1979, to be exact, nations have tolerated Iran’s destructive and destabilizing behavior in the Middle East. Those days are over. Iran has been the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and their pursuit of nuclear weapons threatens the civilized world. We will never let that happen.” In the statement, he also emphasized that the only reason Iran was even capable of launching ballistic missiles is because of the Iran Nuke Deal: “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion. The missiles fired last night at us & our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”
Assistant to Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Jonathan Hoffman also issued a statement: “At approximately 5:30 p.m. (EST) on January 7, Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles against U.S. military and coalition forces in Iraq. It is clear that these missiles were launched from Iran and targeted at least two Iraqi military bases hosting U.S. military and coalition personnel at Al-Assad and Irbil…”
This stands in stark contrast with Iranian state TV (parroted by MSNBC, because fake news media will always give us fake news if it hurts Donald Trump) which claims there were around 30 U.S. casualties as a result of the strikes. Now, I wonder just why exactly it is that, while we say there are no U.S. casualties, Iran is saying there are as part of their retaliatory strike.
And before anyone tries to suggest that we are the ones trying to save-face here, keep in mind just who is POTUS right now. If there were U.S. casualties, Trump wouldn’t lie about it and we would retaliate in turn. What appears to be reality here is that Iran tried to save-face by “retaliating” for the death of Soleimani, intentionally avoided American casualties and then tried to claim it was an Iranian victory in their state-owned television stations to lie to their own people and claim that they “avenged” Soleimani.
This way, they can avoid a full-blown war with the U.S., as they know they don’t have the military capability to fight us and they can pretend to their own people that Soleimani has been avenged and can claim victory while working towards de-escalation, which even Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, following the “retaliation” strikes, said: “We [Iran] do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
Rich coming from Iran that they would claim victimhood over the killing of a terrorist who killed hundreds of our soldiers, but the important part is the beginning: they do not want war or further escalations. Granted, these words are pretty much contradicted by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said that the strikes were “not enough”, though did not suggest that more immediate military action would be taken.
What do I think the story here is? Again, an attempt to save face for Iran. Their state-owned news stations claim that there were multiple casualties and, given that everyone expects Trump not to do anything because no American lives were lost, they can claim that Trump was “scared to act” in response and that Iran has achieved a “great victory”, as we were “slapped” the night of the strikes, as Khamenei tweeted, but in reality, it’s entirely possible that Iran will seek to de-escalate from here on out, even if it outwardly claims that further “vengeance” will be taken.
Of course, time will tell if peace will be achieved with Iran, but if THAT was their retaliation for killing their most VALUABLE terrorist General, I think World War III is a long way off, to the dismay of the American Left.
But this is not really why I am writing this piece. Read the title again: “A Strange Day Regarding Iran”. Iran attacking our military bases and strutting around like they achieved something major is par for the course and far from strange. Delusional dictators always pretend that any battle with an enemy goes their way and is a great “victory” for them. But there are other developments that have occurred on the very day of these strikes.
Let’s begin with what I think is the most normal of the two, but the timing is fairly brow-raising: Iran being hit with two earthquakes, one of them being close to a nuclear power plant. Hearing this, I immediately thought a couple of things: either this was A) a test of nuclear weapons by Iran (though that thought was shot down as soon as I found out this was a power plant, not a testing facility), or B) this was God punishing Iran and setting their nuclear program back a ways.
While I would certainly attribute things like these to God, who made the Earth, I say that this is the most normal of the two occurrences because, according to Fox News: “Iran lies on major seismic faults and has an average of one earthquake per day.” Earthquakes are very frequent in the country, so that’s why I doubt the earthquakes were caused by nuclear explosions (what’s more, not all nuclear bombs can create earthquakes, particularly ones that read 4.9 on the Richter scale, and it’s not even certain that Iran has any nukes to speak of), so in all likelihood, this one was just a normal earthquake that coincidentally occurred near a nuclear power plant.
The second thing that occurred that I think is far more suspicious is the fact that a Ukrainian Boeing 737 single-aisle plane crashed shortly after takeoff from Imam Khomeini International Airport. The cause was suspected to have been engine failure, and the Ukrainian embassy even initially released a statement pointing to engine failure, but later retracted that statement.
BBC reporter Ali Hashem tweeted out a video of the plane being in total fire before eventually crashing.
The video is bone-chilling and raises the question: was it really engine failure? Because the entire plane was set ablaze. Usually, when there is an engine fire, only the turbine is on fire and even under such rare circumstances, there are many ways for the crew and the pilots specifically to remedy the situation. The first thing pilots will do when there is an engine fire is switch off the engine, allow the plane to glide and look to land in the nearest airport. But looking at the video again, while the dark of night makes the fire easy to contrast, it looks as though the entire plane was on fire.
What’s more, all 176 souls on the flight – the passengers and the crew – perished in this crash. Unless the flight crew was extremely inexperienced and incompetent, an engine fire alone couldn’t have brought down the bird like this, resulting in this many deaths as well. From the video, it’s clear that the plane outright fell out of the sky. It didn’t seem to glide very much and, again, it was completely engulfed in flames. Engine failure is hardly ever a death sentence, particularly in this day and age when aviation technology is so advanced and does not even often result in an engine fire.
What makes this entire situation even more suspicious is the fact that Iran is refusing to turn over the black box of the plane to Boeing. If this were just an accident, and Iran knew or at least believed this was an accident, they’d be willing to hand over the black box to try and discern the cause for this tragic and very fatal crash.
Now, I know what you may be thinking: “Is this the retaliation that Iran was actually seeking against us?” I honestly doubt it. While 176 people did die on this flight and that is most definitely tragic, there wasn’t a single American on board. According to the Ukrainian minister for foreign affairs, the victims included 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainians (including the nine crew), 10 Swedes, 4 Afghans, 3 Germans and 3 British.
Furthermore, what also makes this unlikely (though admittedly, not impossible) to be engine failure is the fact that the aircraft was serviced two days prior and was less than four years old, according to Ukrainian International Airlines. UIA President Yevgeny Dykhne said in a press briefing: “The aircraft was in good condition… We guarantee the serviceability of our aircraft and the high qualification of our crews.”
The aircraft was too new and too recently serviced (and nothing wrong was reported about the craft following service) for engine failure to have been the likely culprit (though, again, it’s not impossible). The fire also, again, consumed the entire plane and there are measures that pilots can take to quickly remedy the situation. And even assuming both engines caught on fire, resulting in the pilots having to cut off both engines, many planes are able to glide for a considerable amount of time while in search of an emergency airport (which they always have to fly close to according to aviation guidelines). This crash happened not too long after takeoff, so there is not much reason for it to not have been able to circle around for an emergency landing. Of course, that would be assuming the plane wasn’t on fire, which it was.
If there was an engine fire, I doubt the pilots wouldn’t have had enough time shortly after takeoff to remedy the situation and glide the aircraft to safety. It was engulfed in flames completely and fell out of the sky. This, plus the fact that Iran refuses to turn over the black box, and I can’t help but speculate that they shot it down.
Whether it was on accident as a result of the missile strikes or intentional, it’s uncertain, but it’s the most likely reason available – certainly more likely than engine failure (and again “engine failure” does not always even result in a fire). While I don’t want to peddle in conspiracy theories and while I don’t have any evidence to suggest Iran definitely shot the plane down, it makes more sense for that to be the case, even if it was an accident, than for it to have been just from “engine failure”.
What makes me think this was also an accident is the fact that not one American was on board, which goes against any idea that this was a retaliatory strike, and the fact that Iran is not outright claiming responsibility for this. They usually claim responsibility for the death and destruction they cause (though not always).
Either way, that was a very peculiar day regarding Iran. Their “retaliatory strike” ended up as nothing more than an attempt to save face with zero casualties, one earthquake occurred near a nuclear power plant and Iran might’ve shot down a Ukrainian plane (another reason I don’t think this was a retaliatory strike is because this plane was en route to Kiev, Ukraine) whether on purpose or on accident.
“Be strong and courageous. Do not fear or be in dread of them, for it is the Lord your God who goes with you. He will not leave you or forsake you.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Back in late October, the Trump administration greenlit an operation to kill the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which resulted in a raid on his compound and the terrorist to blow himself up (alongside three of his children) to avoid being killed or arrested by U.S. forces. Following this raid, the Left went into a fit because we killed the leader of ISIS, proving even more that they are adamantly against the United States.
In early January of 2020, following an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, which was orchestrated by Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who once visited the Obama White House and has killed hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans, the United States used an MQ-9 Reaper drone to fire missiles at a convoy of terrorists leaving Baghdad International Airport. This strike not only killed dozens of terrorists, but it has been confirmed now by State Department officials that one of the deaths was the aforementioned general Soleimani.
Retired Lt. Col. James Carafano said: “The reported deaths of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani and the Iraqi commander of the militia that killed an American last week was a bold and decisive military action made possible by excellent intelligence and the courage of America’s service members. His death is a huge loss for Iran’s regime and its Iraqi proxies, and a major operational and psychological victory for the United States.”
Phillip Smyth, an expert on Iran-controlled Shia militias and the Middle East at the Washington Institute said: “This is a major blow. I would argue that this is probably the most major decapitation strike the United States has ever carried out… This is a man who controlled a transnational foreign legion that was controlling governments in numerous different countries… He had a hell of a lot of power and a hell of a lot of control. You have to be a strong leader in order to get these people to work with you, know how and when to play them off one another, and also know which Iranians do I need within the IRGC-QF (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a designated terrorist organization), which Lebanese do I need which, Iraqis do I need… that’s not something you can just pick up at a local five and dime. It takes decades of experience.”
Other military experts agreed that the killing of Soleimani was more significant than bin Laden or al-Baghdadi.
The Pentagon said in a statement: “General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the nation. This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”
The Pentagon also said that Soleimani had orchestrated numerous attacks on U.S.-led coalition bases in Iraq over the last few months, including an attack on December 27th, which killed an American contractor and wounded U.S. servicemembers as well as Iraqi personnel.
Carafano also said: “The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps… led by Suleimani, was responsible for the deaths of more than 600 Americans in Iraq between 2003-2011, and countless more injured. He was a chief architect behind Iran’s continuing reign of terror in the region. This strike against one of the world’s most odious terrorists is no different than the mission which took out Osama bin Laden – it is, in fact, even more justifiable since he was in a foreign country directing terrorist attacks against Americans.”
Suffice to say that Soleimani was an evil piece of crap and no one but the bad guys would miss him. Enter the American Left, the fake news media and even a Hollywood elite being adamantly against this operation to kill a top enemy of the United States.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) complained on Twitter: “Soleimani was an enemy of the United States. That’s not a question. The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”
A couple of things to say about this. First, I don’t remember Democrats complaining when Obama didn’t notify them that we would be killing bin Laden. That’s because the Commander-in-Chief does not need to notify Congress that he is going to kill a terrorist. These idiots also complained that Trump didn’t notify them that he was killing Baghdadi. The reason being that he didn’t want the secret of the operation being spread, potentially saving Baghdadi and putting American servicemembers’ lives in danger. Granted, we used a drone instead of armed forces this time around, but we know just how partisan these people are. They would’ve blabbed about targeting Soleimani in an effort to save his life and keep Trump from scoring any political victory.
How do I know these people are partisan hacks? Aside from EVERYTHING they’ve done over the past few years, look at how these people are reacting to these news. Instead of being elated that an objectively EVIL guy is dead, they all let their Trump Derangement Syndrome take over and are DEFENDING Iran.
Just three days ago, and moving on to the second point I wanted to make, Sen. Chris Murphy also tweeted the following regarding the attack on our embassy: “The attack on our embassy in Baghdad is horrifying but predictable. Trump has rendered America impotent in the Middle East. No one fears us, no one listens to us. America has been reduced to huddling in safe rooms, hoping the bad guys will go away. What a disgrace.”
Three days ago, Murphy was complaining that we weren’t doing anything and claimed that America was “impotent” in the Middle East because of Trump (totally ignoring the fact that Benghazi was attacked under Obama’s watch and he did nothing to help there). Fast-forward three days and now he’s complaining about taking action against THE GUY WHO ORCHESTRATED THE ATTACK ON THE EMBASSY?!
Not that I find this the least bit surprising. They will attack Trump regardless of what he does. He doesn’t do something against terrorists who attacked our embassy? “Trump is weak”. He does something against terrorists who attacked our embassy? “Trump just started World War III”. It’s all a load of b.s. and no one in their right mind would take these people seriously for even a second.
But moving on to the other anti-American traitors, we find none other than the Washington Post, the official terrorist mourning organization, reporting: “Breaking news: Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qasem Soleimani, Iraqi state television reports.”
Don’t know if this quite beats “austere religious scholar” but it’s an embarrassment that it can come so close. Soleimani, as previously explained, was not Iran’s most “revered military leader”. He was a terrorist piece of garbage responsible for the deaths of hundreds of servicemembers and possibly thousands of Americans. And the only ones that “revered” the demon were people within the terrorist regime.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo shared a video on Twitter of Iraqis “dancing on the street for freedom; thankful that General Soleimani is no more.” And why would they be happy at Soleimani’s death? Because he was also the guy responsible for the deaths and kidnappings of protesters that had been troubling the terrorist regime for years in the neighboring country (reportedly, he caused the deaths of upwards of 500 people and injured another 20,000 protesters). We killed the guy who helped oppress the people of IRAQ and the people of Iraq are thankful.
Of course, this doesn’t stop the Left from further trying to paint Trump as a “warmonger” who just ignited the third World War and are cowering at what Iran might do in retaliation (because they were clearly oh, so peaceful before we killed Soleimani).
Despite the very clear evidence that Soleimani was a terrorist and that this was an attack in response to him ORCHESTRATING an attack on OUR embassy, the Left says that this is an act of war. By no means. This is an act of self-defense as a result of that attack on our embassy. It is an act of retribution for the THOUSANDS of American, not to mention Iranian and Iraqi lives, that he helped to take. It is an act of strength to show the terrorist regime that Obama is not president anymore and they can’t get away with whatever they want anymore.
This will not lead to World War III. I doubt this will even lead to full-blown war against Iran. Richard Engel said that “Iranians will consider US killing Soleimani an act of war. A proxy war could erupt. Likely in Iraq, but also a danger in Lebanon and Israel. This is a big escalation.” To which I say: Soleimani was already orchestrating numerous proxy wars in the region anyway. I don’t care if they consider this an act of war or an act of crapping on their sandwich; they will say whatever they want to justify further actions (and the media will be delighted by such actions). At most, this would cause a proxy war, but nothing more severe than that. If Iran actually had the means to fight us in a war, there’d be nothing stopping them from doing so. Unlike ISIS or al-Qaeda terrorists, Iran can’t go into hiding.
Now, Leftists could say: “See? This will only make things worse. This will cause the Iranians to attack us.” They were already attacking us and they have been FOR DECADES. It’s not like Trump attacked the Iranians unprovoked. They have been pulling crap against us, plotting and funding terrorist acts against us for decades at this point, pretty much since the Mullahs took over in 1979. Killing Soleimani will help deter future terrorist acts simply due to how many he was responsible for and was in the process of planning.
But what is perhaps the worst part of the Left’s clear betrayal of this country was something that actress Rose McGowan tweeted:
“Dear Iran, the USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us.” She also tweeted a gif of what appears to be an Iranian flag, but edited to have a sun emoji and a lion emoji in the middle part, for some reason.
But regardless of that strange gif, it is pretty clear how spineless the Left is. Thankfully, McGowan does not represent the U.S. and the VAST MAJORITY of Americans are happy that a terrorist is dead. One Twitter user, who claims to be Iranian, replied to her: “I’m Iranian by birth. Iranians are happy. Do you realize that this guy was [a] psychopath? Part of a group that tortured, raped, sodomized its own citizens? Do you have any f***ing clue or do you just want attention? Soleimani makes Harvey Weinstein look like a saint. Let that sink!”
I would assume McGowan wants as much attention as Jane Fonda did by siding with the Vietcongs. Back then, it was Hanoi Jane. Today, we have Tehran McGowan, it seems. These idiot Leftists have zero clue what they are talking about and most likely have never even heard of Soleimani before recently, otherwise, they really wouldn’t be calling Trump’s administration the “terrorist regime” here.
The Left does not support the United States. They hate it when we succeed. They hate it when we win at any capacity. They think we should be groveling on the ground, begging for other countries’ “forgiveness” for our “past sins” and “transgressions”. If you need any more proof that the Left hates this country, look at what they are doing right this moment.
“For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
One particular quirk about the fake news media that I seriously dislike but sometimes find deliciously ironic and hypocritical is the fact that they will always attack Trump no matter what he does. And late last week, they did that again, regardless of what Trump had been planning on doing or what he actually ended up doing when it came to the situation surrounding Iran.
As I suspect many of you know, late last week, President Donald Trump had originally ordered a strike on multiple different Iranian targets like radar stations and missile batteries, but ultimately decided to pull out of that strike 10 minutes before it was scheduled to begin.
Despite the fact that he decided AGAINST bombing Iran, the fake news media and (perhaps rather predictably) the war-hawks of the NeverTrump movement berated the President for his inaction, with many trying to compare him with Obama and his “red-line” comments regarding Syria and overall inaction against a terrorist group the former POTUS called a "JV team". However, this is, obviously, a very dumb comparison.
Regarding ISIS, Trump was FAR stronger in dealing with them, considering they basically hold no territory anymore compared to the entire caliphate they owned while Obama was President. Trump DESTROYED ISIS, not that you would know if you were watching the fake news media. Even with Syria, Trump actually DID SOMETHING. Remember the missile strikes back in April of 2017? That's what Obama SHOULD have done, but Trump ultimately did.
But attacking Iran would definitely launch us into yet another costly and unnecessary war in the Middle East, which, considering Iran’s alliance with Russia, could also have the potential to escalate into World War III. And for what? Some oil tankers and a drone getting destroyed? No actual casualties in any of the situations?
Like Trump said on Twitter, such a strike against Iran would’ve been disproportionate to the next to harmless acts of Iran. It’d be like beating someone up because they shoved you a little.
Here’s what Trump said following the reporting of his decision to not attack Iran:
“President Obama made a desperate and terrible deal with Iran – gave them 150 billion dollars plus 1.8 billion dollars in CASH! Iran was in big trouble and he bailed them out. Gave them a free path to nuclear weapons, and SOON. Instead of saying thank you, Iran yelled Death to America. I terminated deal, which was not even ratified by Congress, and imposed strong sanctions. They are a much weakened nation today than at the beginning of my presidency, when they were causing major problems throughout the Middle East. Now they are bust! On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!”
So what is it we are looking at here? Well, first, the President is rightly pointing out the fact that Iran is very much in the position they are today because Obama basically bailed them out and let them have a path to nuclear weapons (which I’m certain they currently have) in a deal that was not constitutional but everyone was too afraid to actually fight Obama on this terrible deal.
This is important to note because one of the arguments being made by the Left and the MSM is that Iran destroyed the oil tankers and the drone because we pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. Obviously, that’s asinine. If that were the reason, they would’ve attacked shortly after the deal was terminated, not over a year later. If the reason for those attacks were because the Iranians are mad that Trump actually stood up to them and did not let them have their nuclear deal anymore, then this is one hell of a slow reaction to that.
The second thing we are looking at here is the very reason for not striking Iran: 150 people would’ve died in comparison to not a single one on our side. That’s not to say we should wait until someone gets killed by the Iranians to act. But that is to say the actions we partake shouldn’t be rash. Let’s not bomb Iran just because they destroyed a couple of oil tankers and an unmanned drone. Sanctions against Iran have been working pretty well, haven’t they? Like Trump said, Iran is far weaker today than a few years ago. That’s because the U.S. is applying the most sanctions it ever has on a country. And now, they are desperate.
But notice how the media is portraying this: they are comparing him to Obama’s inaction against ISIS, Syria and Russia. Again, it’s nothing like that. But what do you think the media portrayal would’ve been had Trump not called off the strike? Would they have said that he was tougher than Obama because he didn’t pull out of the strike? OF COURSE NOT! They would’ve compared him to Bush and ran the same tired stories about how we were bombing innocent children and families in Afghanistan and comparing this to that. They are convinced Trump is a war-hawk, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the fact he did not actually strike Iran goes against their narrative.
Trump promised we would not enter a war while he was President. So far, he’s the only president to actually stick to such a promise. Remember when Obama promised he would pull us out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Remember how he did not do that and almost pulled us into a war with Syria on top of the other two wars we were already having? Trump, unlike Obama, doesn’t really care for the military industrial complex if it means that war is necessary. War is not necessary, for the most part. There are times, yes, when war is necessary. The Revolutionary War, for example. But war is usually unnecessary, especially if the reason for it is a couple of ships and a drone being destroyed but no casualties actually being tallied.
Now, another argument Leftists make is that Trump was a buffoon for waiting until there were ten minutes left to ask how many casualties there would be or he was a buffoon for waiting until there were ten minutes left until the strike to actually call it off. Both are arguments being made right now and both are equally dumb.
Regarding the first argument, we don’t know if he waited until there were only 10 minutes left to ask how many casualties there would’ve been. We only know that he asked how many there would be and that he called it off 10 minutes before the strike, citing those reasons. My guess is that he asked prior to those ten minutes how many casualties there’d be and he mulled it over, ultimately concluding such casualties would be an overreaction on our part, calling it off as a result.
Now, I know what the Leftists in the audience (if there even are any) are saying: “Well, that’s even worse! He considered killing 150 people but only ultimately decided not to because he has no idea what he’s doing!” To which I say: that’s insanely idiotic. I do think Trump was mulling it over, but likely only because he has war-hawks advising him as to what they ought to do. For as much as I love John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, they are both war-hawks. Sometimes, it’s good to have such people advising you, because they’re likely to offer the best advice if you are looking to be strong in a war. But such people are not very interested in ending one.
Killing 150 Iranians would’ve been an overreaction considering what little Iran did by comparison. When it comes to Iran, we hold all the cards. Getting pulled into a war would dilute that advantage. And while I have no doubt we would win a war against Iran, it’s entirely unnecessary to get into one in the first place.
President Trump isn’t “weak” because he pulled out of striking Iran. Again, he was plenty strong against ISIS and the results show. And he launched strikes against Syrian targets when the Syrian government gassed their OWN PEOPLE. He’s not weak. He’s just a rational person who knows that killing 150 people just because they destroyed two oil tankers and a drone, which can all be replaced, would be a gross overreaction. And even the MSM would’ve said so, had Trump not called off the strike.
Trust me, we are all better off not having attacked Iran over this. If Iran truly wants a war, then they’ll have to throw the first punch. Destroying oil tankers and a drone, and then waiting on forensic evidence to be done to determine who attacked the tankers, not claiming responsibility for it after it happened and claiming they had the right to destroy the drone as it was “over Iranian airspace” is not indicative of a country that really wants a war. If they did, they would’ve claimed responsibility for the oil tankers and would’ve said “so what if we destroyed a drone over international air space? Fight me”. Beyond that, they would’ve done far worse damage than that.
Iran doesn’t want a war. They want to talk to Trump to remove the sanctions and believe attacking U.S. property will give them some leverage in negotiations.
But we’ll see what happens as things progress, of course. I could be totally wrong here and things could escalate to an actual war, but I don’t think I’m wrong here.
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
There is a very good reason I have ceased calling people who work in the media, at least mainstream media, “journalists”. A journalist is someone who digs into issues, asks tough but fair questions, and looks for the objective truth. They can be wrong, but they were looking for truth. People who work in the mainstream media, in this day and age, don’t look for the truth. They look to fabricate it.
So, when anyone from an MSM source writes an opinion piece about Trump that is neither overly critical of him nor overly supportive of him (I admit to doing the latter pretty much all of the time), it is seen as a breath of fresh air.
Grady Means wrote such an article on the San Francisco Chronicle. Now, while it’s not CNN, the NYT and other major MSM sources, given this is coming from the city where the phrase “full of crap” is taken literally, it makes sense to make certain presumptions about this California-based news source.
His article, titled “In defense of Trump’s foreign policy” notes the interesting way the POTUS goes about dealing with other nations in comparison to his predecessors (particularly Obama) and what results such dealings bring about to the security of not just the United States, but perhaps even the rest of the world.
In his second paragraph, he makes it known that he is not an apologist for Trump; that he did not vote for Trump nor Hillary. He notes: “I didn’t and still don’t think he has a firm grasp of history and global issues, and so I have no dog in this fight…”
So it is clear that Grady is not exactly a Trump supporter, but he is not a Leftist whacko either and can recognize good work when he sees it, even if it derives from questionably confusing tactics.
Grady writes: “As opposed to his immediate predecessors, he has not gotten us into a huge catastrophe in Iraq (in fact, he has not gotten us into any big shooting war). He has not gone on an embarrassing global apology tour to autocratic Muslim countries who treat women like dirt. He has not telegraphed our moves in Afghanistan and Iraq, emboldening our enemy and leading to loss of American lives. And, for the moment, he has stopped nuclear and missile expansion in North Korea as opposed to Presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, who all claimed to have stopped North Korea’s nuclear program. Not to ‘conflate’, but he is way ahead of his more articulate predecessors on many counts – the ones that actually count.”
Clearly, we can see Grady had some issues with the way Obama particularly dealt with foreign policy. That paragraph leads me to believe he is not a Leftist, seeing as pretty much all Leftists saw Obama’s apology tour not as embarrassing or degrading but as justice for decades of “stealing” and “cheating” from other countries.
Then, Grady makes the point that he is not entirely certain what Trump is thinking most of the time. “So what is Trump’s foreign policy? It appears to have something to do with positioning and making deals, although we would need to use IBM’s Watson computer running a million variations of game theory to fully understand his logic and approach. But that does not make it wrong. It just makes it confusing.”
He then details the way Trump treats Putin and Xi Jinping, the leaders of America’s two most notable enemies. He, in person, flatters them to no end and strokes their egos, calling them “good guys” and saying he trusts them in front of cameras.
Part of the reason the Left believes Trump is a traitor or a Russian spy is due to how he treats Putin and Xi Jinping in person. But they always leave out what Trump does in his policy, which is actually against the interests of Russia and China.
Grady notes that Trump’s actions seemingly contradict his personal words of flattery for the rival nations. One moment, Trump is stroking their egos, and the next, “he dramatically expands the defense budget (aimed at China and Russia), takes the advice of the command leadership to streamline military response and effectiveness, moves a good portion of the Pacific fleet to the coast of China and North Korea, and directly challenges China over the islands in the South China Sea. He TWICE draws a red line on chemical weapons in Syria and enforces it (as opposed to his feckless predecessor) with cruise missile attacks, and then attacks and kills Syrian and Russian forces committing genocide. He provides lethal weapons to Ukraine to fight Russians, creates a better balance between the Shiite and Sunni forces in the Middle East, re-strengthens our alliance with Israel, starts a mini trade skirmish with China to force a needed discussion on intellectual property theft that his predecessors were afraid to have, refocuses foreign policy on Asia and firms up the alliance with Japan.”
Grady goes on and on, listing off Trump’s foreign policy achievements such as expanding our energy resources by dealing with Saudi Arabia, “kicking NATO and EU leadership (which led his predecessors around by the nose) in the rear for their historically cynical and mercantilist policies, expands NATO funding and strengthens it significantly,” strengthening our cyberwarfare systems and strengthening the U.S. economy, which is a crucial factor in any dealings, with the strengthening of the value of the dollar.
Then, Grady openly admits: “I have no idea what the guy is thinking.”
That’s fine, but I would like to try my hand at explaining the Don’s logic. I think Trump, above other things, wants to remain unpredictable. Creating confusion is a part of remaining unpredictable. What I believe he intends to do is to make a deal every single time he meets with someone. He’s not going to meet with world leaders just to get a photo-op. His mission is to make a deal with them. Granted, that’s what world leaders tend to do anyway, but given that he wrote the book on making deals, he sees it as his number one priority above all else for the duration of the meeting.
And in these meetings, as I have said in his defense of the Helsinki meeting, he does not want to antagonize the opposing party. He would do the same with the Democrats if they were not so stuck up as to deny to give him anything he wants and then whine when he does things they don’t like. When he meets actual world leaders, he looks to make a deal because he feels that he really can. Frankly, we’ve seen everyone from Emmanuel Macron to Vladimir Putin to even Kim Jong-un be friendlier with Trump than the Democrats have.
The way Trump thinks is this: “I can be your best friend or your worst enemy”. In personal meetings, he does his best to be friendly unless he is attacked for no reason. He meets with our supposed “allies” in NATO and the EU and treats them the same way they have been treating us for ages: poorly. Then, he goes to our enemies and treats them nicely. He is sending our “allies” a message that he can find other allies apart from them. That he can befriend others and treat them well. That they have not been fair with the U.S. and he’s not taking crap from them.
He could easily be Europe’s greatest ally if they were making fair deals with us.
And at the end of the day, Trump, knowing that Russia and China are still our greatest rivals, enacts policy and actions that go against their best interests. That still stand up for American interests and for world interests.
It may be confusing, considering we likely have not seen any other President before him deal with foreign powers, enemies and allies alike, in the way that he does (I say likely because I can only realistically compare Trump to Obama and don’t know how the previous Presidents after our period of isolationism dealt with foreign powers).
However confusing it may be, it’s working like a charm. Iran, despite their threats and being “unimpressed” with Trump’s all-caps tweet against them, is crumbling with their currency imploding on them and their people visibly ticked off at the leadership. North Korea has recently been dismantling key launching facilities because of the June 12 summit. ISIS has been almost entirely wiped out, with no large terrorist attacks having occurred in America since Halloween of last year (there have been some smaller ones, but nothing ISIS can claim responsibility for).
So with all of these major threats to our nation either being destroyed (ISIS), denuclearized or defunded and on the brink of collapse, even Grady has to admit: “… I feel a lot safer today than I did under his past predecessors.”
In the span of less than two years, Donald Trump has destroyed the “JV” team, reached a deal to get North Korea to denuclearize and stopped funding the terror-sponsor that is Iran’s nuclear capabilities (though I fear Obama has done too much damage here).
Our biggest foreign threats, at this point, are horrendous tariffs from other nations imposed on American products, but that is being taken care of with a trade war that we are in prime position of winning, given our strong and improving economy.
Grady’s article overall is a breath of fresh air regarding coverage of Trump. Usually, people are either overly critical of him (on both sides, for some reason) or overly supportive of him (I do this largely because he does a lot of great things for this country that heavily outweigh any “character flaws” he may have and sins of the past such as Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal).
It is hard to find honest coverage of a sitting President, especially in today’s world of rhetoric and narrative over objective truth.
“Then you will understand righteousness and justice and equity, every good path;”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that Trump made the decision to pull out of the Iran nuke deal, which sent the Left for a loop. As an example, the New York Times attacked the new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for not being there when Trump made the announcement. Because I guess the President needed his hands to be held by his Secretary of State as he was giving the announcement.
The Failing New York Times ran the story titled: “At a Key Moment, Trump’s Top Diplomat Is Again Thousands of Miles Away.” The story reads as follows: “Senior State Department officials were momentarily speechless on Tuesday when asked why Mr. Pompeo did not delay his trip by a day to be in Washington during Mr. Trump’s Iran deal announcement.”
Again, why would Pompeo being there even matter? So he might witness it? He certainly wasn’t going to stop it. Why would it matter? For no other reason than it makes Trump look bad… In the Left's mind. I mean, that’s what the MSM is always striving to do, so they are making this to be a far bigger deal than it really is.
Pompeo not being there during the announcement isn’t a big deal. You know what is a big deal? Obama not getting support from HIS OWN PARTY when signing the Iran deal in the first place. Which is, by the way, the reason Trump can so easily pull out of the Iran deal. No one in Congress ratified it and made it a treaty. Even the Iranians never signed it, it was just a promise from Obama to give hundreds of billions of America’s dollars to help Iran “build bridges and roads”. Obama was pretty much on his own regarding the deal. THAT is a big deal.
But Pompeo not being present is not a big deal. And considering what he was actually doing, that story only makes the New York Times look even worse.
What was Pompeo doing, exactly? Well, it really is no secret today. He was in North Korea negotiating the release of three Americans detained in North Korean prisons. I’m hesitant to call it “negotiating”, since we didn’t really give anything in return. Unlike Obama, who also said the Iran deal was to free some American hostages in Iran, Trump and Pompeo didn’t have to give up a king’s ransom and the safety of the civilized world for these Americans.
So excuse Mr. Pompeo for not attending something he had nothing to do with while he goes to rescue three Americans detained in a horrible place. His fault, I guess.
But still, I do want to point out how ridiculous that story was in the first place. Ignore the fact that Pompeo was rescuing American hostages in North Korea. He could’ve been sitting at home playing Call of Duty for all it mattered. His absence doesn’t mean anything in the long-run. But why was this a story published by the NYT to look as though it was a scandalous thing? Because that’s just how they treat the Trump administration.
Seriously, the NYT (and the MSM as a whole, really) could make Trump choosing to drink Sprite over Coca-Cola seem like a disqualifying factor for presidency. Well, that’s not entirely true. They can TRY and write stories about how disqualifying it is but they couldn’t really make most people believe it.
Even for their own readers, there is a limit to how ridiculous and bombastic their stories can be. If they ran a story saying that Trump is a Martian from the year 5400, I would find it hard to believe that their readers would start thinking that too.
Don’t misunderstand, there could be a few cooks who would believe literally anything, but the majority of their readers would almost certainly not believe that… at least not literally.
But returning to the eye-rolling NYT piece, even Fox News took note of the idiotic Trump-bashing article, saying: “The story, written by Gardiner Harris, focused on Trump’s top diplomat being absent when Trump ‘made what could be the most significant diplomatic announcement of his presidency’ by pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement… The absence of Mr. Pompeo and other top State Department officials left perplexed European diplomats privately complaining that they were having trouble getting answers from Washington.”
So the reason this is supposed to be a big deal is because some European Globalists were whining that they were not getting many answers from Washington? Why would that matter at all? This was a deal between Obama (one can hardly say this was a deal involving the U.S., really) and Iran. There was no third party involved. To what questions did they seek answers?
“Why did Trump pull out of the deal?” Because it’s a horrendous deal that only strengthens Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons in the future and become an even bigger threat to the region and to the world. They hate Israel, have quarrels with Saudi Arabia, and detest the Western world altogether. Why did we pull out? Because it was a stupid deal in the first place that should never have even happened and only happened through Obama’s dictatorial style of issuing executive orders for things he wanted when Congress told him “no”. He was, in essence, a small child with a powerful pen.
“How was Trump able to pull out of the deal in this manner?” Because Obama signed the deal in the same manner. Trump would not have been able to pull us out of the deal like this if it had been ratified by Congress. Because Obama issued an executive order to make this deal, it was effectively a deal signed with a pencil. As easy as one can write something with a pencil, one can erase something written with a pencil.
This is much in the same way Trump has every right to get rid of DACA. DACA was unconstitutional in the first place and was issued via executive order. That’s why it’s ridiculous for a judge to say that Trump can’t get rid of it the way he is.
Because the Iran deal was never ratified, it doesn’t have to go through Congress to be rid of. And even if Trump decided that this matter should go through Congress, Congress would’ve most likely agreed to pull out as well. Like I said, Obama couldn’t even find much support within his own party. People like Chuck Schumer, as scummy as they may be on other issues, still tend to somewhat favor Israel. The Iran deal only further threatened Israel. So today, even if Congress were to have voted on it, it’s entirely likely that at least a decent number of Democrats might’ve voted to get rid of the deal.
But since Obama was a dictator and was never opposed, he could sign the deal without much trouble. Only problem is that future Presidents could do much the same, even regarding EO’s signed by previous Presidents. Frankly, that’s part of the reason Trump has been so successful so quickly in rebuilding the nation.
After the Democrats lost their supermajority in Congress, Obama refused to make any bipartisan deals with the Republicans. He didn’t want to negotiate or give anything up. So his legislation was largely left up to his pen. And he was able to do that because Republicans were not going to oppose him on that, fearing backlash from the media.
But because Obama was destroying the country by pen and paper, Trump can rebuild the country in the same way. The trick is finding a way to make it permanent, or at least tougher to undo.
Regardless, I will end this article by laughing at the NYT’s pathetic attempt at smearing Trump and Pompeo. If this is the best the Left can offer at this point in time, the Left’s blue wave will be as threatening as a bath’s waves.
“Whoever walks in integrity walks securely, but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Earlier this week, President Trump announced that he is putting an end to the Obama-era nuclear deal we had with Iran. This, of course, is fantastic news for the world but terrible news for the Left.
Everyone on the Left from the Mainstream Media to former Obama aides to even Obama himself have all attacked Trump and the U.S. for pulling out of the deal.
MSM sources like the Daily Beast “reported”: “Trump scraps the Iran deal, echoes the bad judgments of Bush.”
Really? Bush had the poor judgment of invading Iraq based on flimsy evidence of WMD’s. Trump showed fantastic judgment in pulling out of a deal that sent ludicrous amounts of money to a major terror sponsor that has been inching closer to nuclearization thanks to that deal alone.
The AP reported: “Trump to withdraw from landmark nuclear accord with Iran, dealing blow to U.S. allies.”
More fake news, it seems. None of our allies liked the deal in the first place. It doesn’t deal a blow to U.S. allies. It deals a blow to Obama’s legacy. And it’s fantastic.
Mediaite reported: “Twitter reacts to Trump’s stunning withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal: ‘pathological liar’ is ‘playing with fire’.”
Now, I don’t care to click on the link to see who it is they are quoting but they are dead wrong.
First, how can anyone say this was a stunning move? IT WAS A CAMPAIGN PROMISE! Now, I know that most politicians say the right things and nearly never deliver on them. President after President promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. None of them did except for Trump.
He made a lot of promises during the campaign and has managed to deliver on almost all of them, at least the ones he has the most power to do.
And he’s not “playing with fire” either. He has killed a deal that would’ve given a rogue nation nuclear missiles in a decade or so. And I’ve said before in other articles that the Iran nuke deal would’ve led to the same result as Bill Clinton’s deal with North Korea in 1994, though perhaps at a faster pace.
And let’s not pretend like Iran was all of a sudden a big ally to the U.S. They are reacting to the death of the deal in the same way they reacted to the signing of the deal. They are chanting “death to America” just as much today as they have been over the past couple of years. The only difference now is that they no longer can give Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations destroying Syria and Yemen the funds to continue their warpaths.
But I believe it’s former Obama people that have the funniest things to say about this whole ordeal.
Former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power had this to say about Trump’s decision: “Trump has demolished America’s credibility & paved the way for Iran to restart its nuclear program. Trump has done the unthinkable: isolated the US & rallied the world around Iran.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you kidding me?! She’s so wrong it’s really funny! “Demolished America’s credibility”?! How so?! This decision came upon deciding the best interests of the American people and its allies! If anything, Obama’s signing of the deal demolished America’s credibility with our allies, who were very much against the deal, and with Israel. Obama has done more to destroy America’s credibility than any other President in U.S. history.
“Rallied the world around Iran”? The only people defending Iran are, as far as I’ve seen, the Russians. According to RT, a Russian news site: “Moscow is ‘deeply disappointed’ by Trump’s decision to pull out from Iran Deal”.
If anything that further destroys the Russian collusion argument, but that is a different topic entirely.
The point is that the world isn’t rallying around Iran. The world knows for A FACT that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism and is deeply hated by many nations, including other Muslim nations. Virtually no one is supporting Iran on this, except for the American Left.
That should tell you everything you need to know, really.
Regardless, let’s move on to another hilarious comment by a former Obama person, Ben Rhodes. “One tragicomic element of Trump’s presidency is that the more he tries to tear down Obama’s legacy, the bigger he makes Obama look.”
That is competing with Power’s comment to win the dumbest and funniest comment by a salty Leftist regarding this issue.
First of all, he’s not trying to tear down Obama’s legacy. He’s succeeding. Obama’s legacy is that of destroying the country as much as he could. In less than 2 years, Trump revived it with greater strength than it has had in a very long time.
Second, he doesn’t make Obama look bigger. He makes Obama look like an incompetent fool at best and a communist traitor at worst. Obama didn’t do anything for the benefit of the U.S. Everything he did was to tear the country down little by little, knowing those things stack up.
And with America’s resurgence economically, as well as in military might, Obama is made to look like a bad nightmare that has long been over. Of course, there is still damage to tend to, but a lot of Obama’s legacy has already been taken care of.
Finally, we have the evil man himself, Barack Obama giving his two cents about this. It’s nothing special, really. It’s just more akin to what Power said. “Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies.”
Like I said before, it doesn’t. It helps them tremendously to not fear the rogue nation getting closer to nuclear power that they will be more likely to use than the North Koreans since at least Kim Jong-un has a puppet-master. Iranian President Rouhani doesn’t.
Overall, the death of the Iran nuke deal is a Godsend to Israel, Western civilization and everyone who sides with justice and what’s right. It’s only a bad thing to those who are either ignorant enough to believe the lies of the Left and the Left themselves, who were hoping for a nuclear Iran and a situation similar to North Korea, where the U.S. would bend to Iran’s will and wishes and simply try to “appease” them.
The death of this deal isolates Iran, not the U.S. And, if anything, this deals a major blow to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Without money from the U.S. being sent to them, they will have to depend upon themselves to continue seeking nuclear power. And Trump has promised to give harsh sanctions to any country that aides Iran’s quest in nuclear power, so that will likely dissuade some major powers.
As with his handling of North Korea, Trump is getting us closer and closer to world peace. We will most certainly never reach it, because world peace would mean evil would cease to exist, but it’s important to come as close to it as realistically possible. After all, the alternative to world peace would be world war and we’ve had enough of those.
“Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
Over the New Year’s weekend, people (more specifically, women) protested the oppressive Iranian regime and, to an extent, Islam. But is the Left supporting these protesters? You can bet your house they’re not!
“But why wouldn’t they?”, you might ask. Well, considering President Trump is supporting the protesters (and this is an anti-government protest), the Left doesn’t want to make any mention of it.
The Fake News Media has hardly covered it, and when they do cover it, they try to use it to attack Trump and his travel ban.
And if anything, the Left has decided to side with the oppressive government. NBC reporter Matt Bradley reported last Sunday: “In Iran, the regime strikes back. After four days (counting today, 7) of anti-government protests and just as many tweets from Donald Trump supporting protesters for ‘finally getting wise’, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani broke his silence. In a speech to his cabinet, he defended demonstrators’ right to protest, but took a swipe at President Trump. ‘This man in America who’s sympathizing with us today has forgotten he called Americans ‘terrorists’ months ago,’ Rouhani said. ‘He has no right to sympathize with Iranians.’ The unrest now deadly – two protesters killed at a rally last night. Officials blaming the deaths on foreign agents.”
Right, a couple of things to talk about here.
First, Rouhani has no right to criticize President Trump. NBC claims he defended the demonstrators’ right to protest. Well, arresting the protesters, a death toll higher than 20 people, and the possibility to send the arrested protesters to death row is a funny way of defending these people’s rights.
Let’s not forget that a similar protest happened in 2009, which was utterly crushed by the Iranian government.
Next, I can’t recall a single time that Trump has called Americans “terrorists”. I don’t know if he’s referring to the actual terrorists that came from the Middle East or if he’s referring to a couple of the church shooters, but I don’t recall Trump saying that of Americans.
Iran is on the “travel ban” list because it’s a state-sponsor of terrorism. Rouhani has absolutely no leg to stand on criticizing Trump in any way.
But returning to the moronic Left, this is a prime opportunity to tout women’s rights on an international scale. And what are American women’s rights activists doing about it? Nothing. They make next to no mention of the importance of these protests.
Feminist group “Moms Rising”, a group of feminist parents decided to end the year by talking about the DREAM Act, which really has nothing to do with the advancement of women’s rights.
The National Organization of Women (NOW) and the National Women’s Law Center are, according to the Daily Wire: “bellyaching about Betsy DeVos” and “talking about a ‘pay gap.’”
And possibly worst of all, though simultaneously unsurprising, Linda Sarsour has said nothing about the protests other than a flimsy effort to attack, well, what do you know? THE TRAVEL BAN!
“Is it just me or is Trump praising Iranian protesters AND at the same time also banned Iranians from entering the USA?”, she said on her Twitter.
Is it just me or is she more preoccupied with being an obstruction against the President than advancing women’s rights in a country that follows a religion that has flushed women’s rights down the toilet?
Seriously, she’s spent this whole year touting how a hijab is “empowering” for women and yet she ignores the fact that women who HAVE to wear it in Iran are sick of it and what it represents.
These Leftists are not pro-women, as you can clearly see. And this is where identity politics gets them into trouble. When two of their preferred identities clash, they have trouble siding with one or the other. But funny enough, whenever Islam comes into play, they’ll always side with Islam.
The Left will push for gay and transgender “rights” but utterly ignore the fact that Islam literally kills those who say are gay or act gay. Even the mere ASSUMPTION that someone’s gay can get that person into trouble.
The Left will push for ideals like Black Lives Matter but ignore the fact that the Muslim World is still ok with slaves and most of the world’s slave population lives in the Middle East.
The Left will push for women’s rights but refuse to support them if they go against Islam.
The Left is not pro-gay, pro-black people (and have a horrendous history of being anti-black), pro-women. They’re pro-ISLAM.
They’re pro the cult of DEATH. I’ve said this before, but it’s necessary to say it again: Islam is the worst thing to happen to the world. This includes women, children, gay people, black people, white people, Christians, Jews, even Atheists.
They oppress women, sell little girls off to be wedded to old men, throw gay people off roofs of buildings, enslave black people, kidnap and behead white people, Christians, Jews and Atheists and make plans to either kill everyone who is not Muslim or FORCE the world to be Muslim.
Islam is horrible and I will never apologize for being against Islam. I don’t think they’re all terrorists, but too many of them are either ok with it or will want to join the fight.
Now, I don’t want to make insane generalizations like that. I understand that there are a lot of people who were Muslim at one point but then converted. Those are the smart and brave people. Why brave? Because if you convert from Islam to anything else, you have a serious chance of being killed even by your own parents or siblings.
Islam is the only religion in the world that punishes people in this life for abandoning that faith. Christian parents won’t kill their child if he/she abandons Christ. They’ll be disappointed and afraid for their child’s salvation, sure, but they won’t kill him/her. Atheist parents (most likely) won’t kill their children if they convert to Christianity (I haven’t seen any cases of that happening but it could certainly happen).
But Muslim parents will seriously consider killing their child if he/she abandons Islam.
The protesters in Iran are very brave for doing this. The woman you see at the top, though the picture is blurry, is waving a hijab on a stick. Islam forces women to wear hijabs, supposedly so that the women don’t “attract men” by showing off body parts like her full head of hair. If your religion struggles with rapist men, it might be time to abandon that garbage religion.
Furthermore, if your religion is ok with little girls who have yet to reach puberty to be sold to old men to be their bride, it might be time to abandon that garbage religion.
If your religion basically enslaves women and actually enslaves black people, it might be time to abandon that garbage religion.
If your religion is so hateful that it requires you to kill anyone who is not like you Nazi style, it might be time to abandon that garbage religion.
And yet, the Left LOVES Islam. A religion that oppresses and punishes anyone who disagrees with it. Gee, I wonder why they love it so much.
1 John 3:8
“Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.”
Author: Freddie Marinelli.
What is one of the campaign promises/slogans Trump made during the campaign trail? One was to Make America Great Again, and he’s working on that (sadly, without his OWN Party). Another was to Make America Safe Again, and he’s also working on that, with the travel ban, tougher military and the mere PROMISE of a Wall delivering results. And the one to talk about here: Make America Proud Again.
And he did just that on Tuesday, September 19th, 2017 at the U.N. General Assembly. In what one Fox News contributor called “the best speech of the Trump presidency”, the POTUS did something the U.N. has never seen before: the President of the United States of America prioritized America, pointed out the unacceptable behavior of rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea, and bashed socialist countries like Venezuela, making an example of them of what happens when socialism is the ruler of a country.
But he didn’t stop there. No, he also went after the disastrous Iran Nuke deal his predecessor made with the Islamic nation, saying: “The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it, believe me.”
Now, this is the sort of thing we’ve heard often during the campaign trail. He would often call the deal a terrible deal and an embarrassment. But this is another thing entirely. His audience isn’t ticked off Americans wanting their country back. His audience were members of a globalist cause that frankly couldn’t care less about the benefit and well-being of the U.S. They only care for as long as they can steal our money in terrible Climate Change deals.
His audience were people that never would’ve expected someone to be so bold with them. Someone who had the GUTS to tell them that this one particular nation is screwing the U.S. over and looking to build weapons of mass destruction. But do you know what happened? Cheers and applause.
According to the U.K. Daily Mail: “’We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles. And we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program,’ Trump said, drawing applause from the leaders of more than 180 nations in the room.”
Would you look at that? Trump bashes and attacks the nuke deal, calling it for what it is, and the people in that room representing their own countries actually liked what he said and sided with him on that. Does that sound like something Obama did? Or something Clinton would’ve done?
Obama just ignored our allies’ cries to not side with the radical Iran and Hillary would’ve done more of the same. Trump, on the other hand, acknowledges, points out and bashes how terrible that deal is and decides to back up America’s allies instead of ignoring them and wants to scrap the whole deal. And this, he said IN A ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES! It’s one thing to say this to Americans who support the President and want their country back. But it’s an entirely different thing to say this to people that are either neutral with Iran or somewhat allied with Iran.
Most countries are not in direct danger from a Nuclear Iran. Israel is. America is. But most countries don’t have much to worry about with Iran, since they’re not in Iran’s sights. So to say this to this kind of crowd really tells you Trump has the guts to point out the evils of this world and not be a part of the evils of this world.
And perhaps the BIGGEST AND GUTSIEST thing he said during the assembly: “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”
HOLY GOD ALL-MIGHTY! He just doubled-down on his plans for North Korea! Now, he didn’t flat-out declare war on North Korea, as Leftists will likely misconstrue what he said. But he is certainly willing to completely destroy that nation if the United States feels as though it needs to defend itself or its allies from the Norks. Later on, he said: “The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully, this will not be necessary.”
He hopes things don’t come down to the United States taking action, but he assures THE WHOLE WORLD that we are ready, willing and able to do just that.
Now, why do I say that this is the biggest and gutsiest thing he said? Well, have you ever heard another United States President strictly warn another country that they will be destroyed if they continue with their shenanigans in front of the U.N. General Assembly? No other President has had either the guts or necessity to do that. Obama certainly didn’t have the guts, and Bush didn’t really have the necessity. So for this POTUS to warn another country that they will be destroyed if the need arises is HUGE!
Yet another reason why I know Trump was the right man for the job. And yet another promise fulfilled from his campaign trail. I certainly know that I’m proud of what Trump said. I certainly know that Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu is proud of what Trump said. And I certainly know that millions of Trump’s supporters are proud of what Trump said.
“’For I know the plans I have for you’, declares the Lord. ‘Plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.’”
Author: Freddie Marinelli
Freddie Marinelli and Danielle Cross will bring you the TRUTH that the Left denies you. You'll live a more joyful and victorious life, because the Truth will set you free...